I will try to answer in the aggregate, as you said, and then my colleagues can elaborate.
Because it is truly a second layer, it is true, we acknowledge, that there was no formal assessment of risk. You used the word “formal”. It doesn't mean that we did not assess the risk, but we did not document it properly. But in our mind, because it's clearly an additional layer, we took a lot of comfort in the fact that everything that is there remains there, the accountability is there, and the responsibilities of individuals are clear.
On the comment about not being clear how things are managed from one region to another, there's a clear comment on that. We are managing risk. We've always managed risk. So the standards we've set for inspections are kind of a range. A certain inspection needs to be done between six months and 36 months, which is a huge difference, I grant you. But if you're in a region and you have two airlines—company A and company B—and company A has come up to the six-month required inspection and you know that company B offers more risk, why would you spend the next two weeks on company A when you know that company B should require more attention? So we do move to company B, which is why there is some latitude within a range.
Should we document that more clearly? I think we've acknowledged that we should, but there is some discretion as well.